Most Likely Altered Document?

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There are HUGE differences between the WC and the 1/6 Committee.

Oswald was not allowed a defense. Trump was allowed a defense via a bi-partisan committee, but bullied his minions into not participating. WHY? So he could declare it a witch hunt and show trial.

The WC operated in secret. The 1/6 Committee has had public hearings, which have provided Trump and his minions an opportunity to respond.

Oswald was an unknown, who the media could dirty up based on leaks, and their inherent bias towards outsiders and oddballs. Trump is well-known, who pursued the media with gusto. 99% of what the public learned of Oswald was filtered through the media's bias. 90% of what the public knew of Trump prior to his treasonous behavior as President was what Trump wanted it to "learn", and what? 90%? of what it has learned since has come from his public actions. (E.G. "Grab 'em by the p...." "Russia, are you listening"..."There were some very fine people on both sides"..."I need you to find me some votes"...)

You shoot yourself in the foot by using Trump to discuss the "Deep State". It's like using Charlie Manson to discuss the need for Freedom of Speech. (I mean, seriously, didn't he have the right to tell young impressionable kids that they should go out and kill some celebrities? No. Not seriously...)

 

PS-

We disagree on this one. 

1. The WC was, more or less, conducted behind close doors. That made it somewhat less of a show trial. The 1/6 is forthrightly conducted as a show trial---broadcast on primetime TV, using a professional producer hired from ABC. 

2. The GOP was supposed to select members for the 1/6 committee. But the Democrats refused to seat the two first choices of the GOP, defining them as "disruptive" (that was congressmen Jordon and Banks). But the Democrats seated Liz Cheney and gave her star billing (think about how Dulles was put on the WC). Please name the 1/6 committee member acting "as the defense."  (I guess there is controversy if Pelosi violated House rules in her decision to boot the GOP'ers. She certainly violated House tradition.)

We probably agree Cheney is a Deep State apparatchik, and someone who loathes the populist wing of her party (which I guess will soon expel her from Congress). 

This is not a bi-partisan committee, in which someone would fairly but aggressively "cross-examine" witnesses, or present entirely other witnesses, or send investigators out to find not only incriminating but exculpatory evidence. 

3. You make a good point that LHO was a blank slate in 1963, allowing the WC to chalk the "leftie, loser, loner" image of LHO unimpeded, with a compliant media.

In contrast, Trump contributed daily to his own foul media image, substantively and otherwise. 

But...the 1/6 event is a blank slate. We do not know what happened behind the scenes.  With a compliant media, we read stories that "Trump sent an armed mob to enter the Capitol and try to murder Pence." 

White House aide testifies Trump sent armed mob to Capitol-The Hill

That is a typical M$M story and also a prosecutorial fantasy. 

In fact, we know of the 850+ arrested that who entered the Capitol, only one (Christopher Albert) was armed, and he was mysteriously released on his own recognizance on 1/7. (It now appears there was a second armed man inside teh Capitol). There was another nut-guy who did not enter the Capitol on 1/6, but was armed and in the area, and he was just sent to prison for seven years. He appears to have been a bona-fide loner-nut, and he was not charged with belonging to any group.

Ponder: To date, zero texts or phone calls have surfaced between Trump & Co. and the rather pitiful organized groups that did show up on 1/6 in or near the Capitol, the specifically unarmed Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. We live in a panopticon state. If there were such texts or phone calls, they would be presented as evidence.

I will say it again, you get a show trial when---

1. Only witnesses called by the prosecution are presented. 

2. Only evidence that is wanted by the prosecution is presented. 

3. The narrative is tightly controlled by the prosecution.

4. There is a generally compliant media, and appeals to emotion and patriotism are made. 

5. People with alternative views are marginalized, or dismissed as disloyal to the US or the Constitution, etc. 

PS--You have admirably scrutinized the one-sided story the WC presented. You approach WC narrative and evidence with skepticism.

If you apply that same level of skepticism to 1/6 narratives.... 

PS--

 

I will post on the film-maker Quested, who was a star witness for the day at a 1/6 hearing. This annoying day job I have gets in the way...even if you disagree with what I write about Quested, I think you will agree it raises questions that defense counsel would have raised...

Stay skeptical of official narratives, no matter the day or season. Washington does not deal in truths, only postures to advance party interests...

Edited August 4, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Guest]

@Pat Speer A little question about the curtain rod story on your blog.  For some reason  I can not acces Chapter 4h (leads me to a Google 404) 

Can I assume the 4h content is the same as in 4g (second part of that) ?

Just wanted te be sure I wasn't missing anything, I really admire your work (and I could use something on paper to explain my wife why I am printing so much lately... I'm old school... usually making notes on the same pages I'm reading).  

Edited August 4, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Dan Rice]

53 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

For some reason  I can not acces Chapter 4h (leads me to a Google 404) 

 

I had the same experience.

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, Dan Rice said:

I had the same experience.

Per Jean Paul's suggestion, I tried to move the curtain rod story to its own chapter. Google sites was "improved" last year and I'm still trying to figure out what got improved. I spent roughly 100 hours last year trying to fix what this "improvement" had done to my website. (It scrambled and changed the size of all the images.) Now I find that I can't just duplicate a chapter and remove  what I don't want in that chapter to create a new chapter. I think that instead of creating a new page it created a new site, that can be linked to but not linked back or some such thing. In any event, The Curtain Rod Story remains in Chapter 4g until I can figure out how to make Chapter 4h co-exist with the rest of the site. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Per Jean Paul's suggestion, I tried to move the curtain rod story to its own chapter. Google sites was "improved" last year and I'm still trying to figure out what got improved. I spent roughly 100 hours last year trying to fix what this "improvement" had done to my website. (It scrambled and changed the size of all the images.) Now I find that I can't just duplicate a chapter and remove  what I don't want in that chapter to create a new chapter. I think that instead of creating a new page it created a new site, that can be linked to but not linked back or some such thing. In any event, The Curtain Rod Story remains in Chapter 4g until I can figure out how to make Chapter 4h co-exist with the rest of the site. 

Thanks Pat, I know keeping a website is all about using not-so-user-friendly-software, so thanks for all your efforts and contributions ! 

[Guest]

Pat, I don't know if you got more on this picture ? On your website you ask if someone knows about the timing of this picture.  I always assumed it was made approx. the same time  "Day's Walk of fame with the Carcano"-pictures were made.  Assuming by his shirt, the pencils in his shirt-pocket, picture quality, etc

But I did notice

1. in this picture the scope has a (white ?) label-string on it (I can not see the label, if there was any), on the other pictures the string was not yet on it / or already off-it.

2. also on this picture there is a lot of dust/powder visible (f/t finger prints I guess), not so on the others (so, again, not yet done or removed ?) or just not visible...    

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Pat, I don't know if you got more on this picture ? On your website you ask if someone knows about the timing of this picture.  I always assumed it was made approx. the same time  "Day's Walk of fame with the Carcano"-pictures were made.  Assuming by his shirt, the pencils in his shirt-pocket, picture quality, etc

But I did notice

1. in this picture the scope has a (white ?) label-string on it (I can not see the label, if there was any), on the other pictures the string was not yet on it / or already off-it.

2. also on this picture there is a lot of dust/powder visible (f/t finger prints I guess), not so on the others (so, again, not yet done or removed ?) or just not visible...    

Thanks. I think this may have been later that night, and that this photo may have been taken by the FBI. It makes me wonder if there are other photos from the crime lab and what they show. Unfortunately, our friend John Hunt--who, strangely enough, remains the only researcher to spend time in the archives copying the FBI bulky files--could have told me, or shown me, if not for his unfortunate passing. 

[Ron Ege]

On 8/3/2022 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

PS-

We disagree on this one. 

1. The WC was, more or less, conducted behind close doors. That made it somewhat less of a show trial. The 1/6 is forthrightly conducted as a show trial---broadcast on primetime TV, using a professional producer hired from ABC. 

2. The GOP was supposed to select members for the 1/6 committee. But the Democrats refused to seat the two first choices of the GOP, defining them as "disruptive" (that was congressmen Jordon and Banks). But the Democrats seated Liz Cheney and gave her star billing (think about how Dulles was put on the WC). Please name the 1/6 committee member acting "as the defense."  (I guess there is controversy if Pelosi violated House rules in her decision to boot the GOP'ers. She certainly violated House tradition.)

We probably agree Cheney is a Deep State apparatchik, and someone who loathes the populist wing of her party (which I guess will soon expel her from Congress). 

This is not a bi-partisan committee, in which someone would fairly but aggressively "cross-examine" witnesses, or present entirely other witnesses, or send investigators out to find not only incriminating but exculpatory evidence. 

3. You make a good point that LHO was a blank slate in 1963, allowing the WC to chalk the "leftie, loser, loner" image of LHO unimpeded, with a compliant media.

In contrast, Trump contributed daily to his own foul media image, substantively and otherwise. 

But...the 1/6 event is a blank slate. We do not know what happened behind the scenes.  With a compliant media, we read stories that "Trump sent an armed mob to enter the Capitol and try to murder Pence." 

White House aide testifies Trump sent armed mob to Capitol-The Hill

That is a typical M$M story and also a prosecutorial fantasy. 

In fact, we know of the 850+ arrested that who entered the Capitol, only one (Christopher Albert) was armed, and he was mysteriously released on his own recognizance on 1/7. (It now appears there was a second armed man inside teh Capitol). There was another nut-guy who did not enter the Capitol on 1/6, but was armed and in the area, and he was just sent to prison for seven years. He appears to have been a bona-fide loner-nut, and he was not charged with belonging to any group.

Ponder: To date, zero texts or phone calls have surfaced between Trump & Co. and the rather pitiful organized groups that did show up on 1/6 in or near the Capitol, the specifically unarmed Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. We live in a panopticon state. If there were such texts or phone calls, they would be presented as evidence.

I will say it again, you get a show trial when---

1. Only witnesses called by the prosecution are presented. 

2. Only evidence that is wanted by the prosecution is presented. 

3. The narrative is tightly controlled by the prosecution.

4. There is a generally compliant media, and appeals to emotion and patriotism are made. 

5. People with alternative views are marginalized, or dismissed as disloyal to the US or the Constitution, etc. 

PS--You have admirably scrutinized the one-sided story the WC presented. You approach WC narrative and evidence with skepticism.

If you apply that same level of skepticism to 1/6 narratives.... 

PS--

 

I will post on the film-maker Quested, who was a star witness for the day at a 1/6 hearing. This annoying day job I have gets in the way...even if you disagree with what I write about Quested, I think you will agree it raises questions that defense counsel would have raised...

Stay skeptical of official narratives, no matter the day or season. Washington does not deal in truths, only postures to advance party interests...

While maybe not being precisely exact down to the most minute technicality of their respective modus operandi, Ben has posted a reasonable view of the overall, fairly obvious similarities of the WC and the Jan. 6 Committee.  The WC had a specific goal, and do we not doubt, so does the committee?

I am just wondering if anyone here believes that there is a possibility that the committee's goal may not just be for "truth, justice, and the American way", but that it is really intent on attempting to further damage DJT to the point that he will not choose to run again or if he does run, he will be unable to win the nomination - or even better, maybe the committee wants to eventually make the case for criminal charges to be brought against him?

Turned out (for many of us, anyway), that Phaedrus was right about November 11, 1963, and maybe we might want to consider making room for him again - re the Jan. 6 committee?

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

While maybe not being precisely exact down to the most minute technicality of their respective modus operandi, Ben has posted a reasonable view of the overall, fairly obvious similarities of the WC and the Jan. 6 Committee.  The WC had a specific goal, and do we not doubt, so does the committee?

I am just wondering if anyone here believes that there is a possibility that the committee's goal may not just be for "truth, justice, and the American way", but that it is really intent on attempting to further damage DJT to the point that he will not choose to run again or if he does run, he will be unable to win the nomination - or even better, maybe the committee wants to eventually make the case for criminal charges to be brought against him?

Turned out (for many of us, anyway), that Phaedrus was right about November 11, 1963, and maybe we might want to consider making room for him again - re the Jan. 6 committee?

RE-

I forgot to add another similarity between the 1/6 committee and the WC. 

No judge. 

There is no judge who enforces courtroom rules, or excludes hearsay or other dubious evidence. Indeed, there are no standards for evidence--it is not a courtroom, just like the WC. 

My take is close to what you suggest.

The 1/6 committee is the embodiment of DC establishment and security state, which has loathed, detested and reviled populists and Trump from before Trump took office. They want the populist movement dead, especially its stances on free trade and immigration. 

Unfortunately, Trump is a polarizing figure (I like to say Trump has the character flaws of any dozen other men put together). How I wish populism had an intelligent and non-divisive figurehead, and eschewed any form of hatred. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/trumps-dangerous-anti-cia-crusade.html

The above op-ed was written by Michael Morell, past CIA director.

The left-wing, which used to look warily upon the CIA, evidently now embraces the Deep State. Morell  penned another op-ed before the 2016 election, advising people to vote for HRC as Trump was so dangerous. 

Then, we had 50 former intel and senior officials swear up and down that Hunter Biden's laptop, which everyone knew was authentic, was really a Russian disinformation plant. Just before the 2020 election. The M$M was missing in action on that one. 

The 1/6 committee, like the WC, is pursuing a narrative, not the truth. 

This does not make Trump angelic, anymore than the WC investigation exonerated LHO. 

It just means we are getting a biased narrative, and truth is disposable.  

 

 

 

[Ron Ege]

The NYT would be little expected to not show bias regarding Trump.  Admittedly, he is hardly among the Seraphim or for that matter, any of the lower categories - but that said, I do not believe that he sits at the right hand of Lucifer, either.  In any search for reality, it behooves one to always "consider the source".  IMHO, the overwhelming majority of those here, do such.